LIBERTARIAN PARTY: The Libertarian Party of Virginia held its convention May 18 in Manassas, and Irwin Schiff and Harry Browne both spoke.
NATIONAL CONVENTION: The Libertarian Party national convention took place in Washington from July 2 through July 7 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill.
Harry Browne was nominated for President of the United States, in one ballot; Jo Jorgensen was nominated for Vice-President. Harry Browne's campaign theme is a simple mantra, "Government doesn't work!"
The platform committee adopted the following "sexual rights" plank:
We affirm the right of adults to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Government must neither dictate, prohibit, control, nor encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We call for repeal of all legislation and government policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or discourage sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
AMENDMENT 2: "We 'won' - but its unclear yet what it all means. Government now has no "rational" basis for singling out gays and denying access to the political process. Perhaps, government may no longer be able to define gays by "the conduct which defines the class." But the best antidote to discrimination in a real world is a really free market.
THE MILITARY BAN: The Senate is removing the HIV ban with the Omnibus Appropriations bill. But the House, with Robert Dornan's trickery, has attached and already passed a horrifying rider to the Defense Authorization Bill for 1997. It restores the HIV-positive ban, but also requires the military to resume "asking" recruits their sexual orientations. It would empower of commanders to conduct witch-hunts and "forced outings", that is, to punish associative behavior (like being seen at gay bars or in the company of other civilian homosexuals). No such anti-gay amendments to the Authorization Bill are expected in the Senate, so this has to be worked out in Committee. Who will Dornan want to "ask" next - teachers? (remember the Briggs Initiative), police, civilians with security clearances? We need to write our Senators about this one - they do pay attention.
The Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network held a packed reception May 20 for Keith Meinhold, who swears he will get elected to national office. He retired with honors from the Navy 3 months too young to be inaugurated. By the way, Bill Clinton claims he, as Commander in Chief, is a member of the military himself. I guess that means "Don't Tell" would apply if I ran for President; after all, I actually finished Basic Training.
On July 1, Navy Lt. Paul Thomasson and his attorney's filed an appeal, challenging his discharge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", to the Supreme Court.
NOTE: If you are in the military, and believe you are under investigation, say nothing and sign nothing. Get legal help immediately. You can call SLDN at 202-328-3244 SLDN1@aol.com
Attorney Ron Davis has published "A Deal on the High Court," an interesting perspective on the effect of Romer on the military ban cases on p. 35 of The July, 1996 Baltimore Alternative.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS: The Southern Baptist Convention has directed its "sheep" to boycott Wal;t Disney theme parks and movies, because of three sins: (1) Disney subsidiary Miramax releasing the film Priest in 1995, which favorably portrayed a gay priest, (2) Disney subsidiary Hyperion Books for publishing Chandler Burr's "heretical" book, A Separate Creation, on homosexuality and biology, and (3) Disney corporation offering benefits to gay domestic partners. They accused Disney of turning against "families." I guess they can boycott if they want, and Disney can offer benefits to its employees as it sees fit. The gay community would call for a boycott if Disney suddenly started outing and firing all of its gay employees. But there would be a major difference. Offering gay people partnership benefits hurts no one, except that it might shave off, relatively, a minuscule percentage of the privileges enjoyed by heterosexually married couples. Firing people (or imprisoning them, as does the military) denies them of a livelihood and maybe their freedom. A "conservative" associate of mine complains that Disney just did this for "the bottom line." Great! Companies have discovered that offering benefits to gay partners actually makes business sense. The free market will decide who wins.
SPOUSES OF CONGRESSPERSONS:
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, June 21, 1996
WASHINGTON - Despite a campaign on Capitol Hill to outlaw federal recognition of gay marriage, Congress gives some official acknowledgment to the companions of three gay members, a published report says.
The partners of Reps. Gerry Studds, D-Mass.; Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Steve Gunderson, R-Wis., all have congressional spouse identification cards, said the July issue of Washingtonian magazine.
The cards allow the men to park in Capitol Hill garages and move freely in and out of restricted areas in the Capitol, even when security is heightened for events like the State of the Union address.
"This is to certify that the person whose name and photograph appear on the card is the spouse of the above named member of the United States House of Representatives,'' the cards say.
An aide in the office of the House Sergeant At Arms, which issues the cards, said that when a member wants a card issued, all he or she has to do is fill out a form and sign it.
TOUGH ON CRIME: The Supreme Court has decided to review two issues: (1) whether states may incarcerate sex offenders for longer than their scheduled prison sentences, and (2) whether states may impose a waiting period to purchase personal weapons. On #1, the question is, why didn't the states impose long enough sentences to start with? You could pose a similar question about hate crimes. If a violent crime (regardless of the victim) deserves lifetime incarceration, then sentence to life without parole. End of story.
DRUGS: The Supreme Court has, to our chagrin, upheld the prerogative of government to seize property of suspected drug offenders even as they wait trial on criminal charges. Rehnquist wrote, incredibly, that civil forfeiture is not "punishment," so there is no double jeopardy. Just remember, the next time you are stopped on an interstate highway because you inadvertently fit a 'profile" - the police can seize your car and cash and the burden of proof is on you to get it back. This has really happened.
Harry Browne has made ending the War on Drugs an important point in his campaign. We did not have a drug problem early in this century when drugs were legal, he says.
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT: This was struck down by a special Appeals Court panel on June 12 as an unconstitutional violation of Free Speech. The law did not contain enough safeguards to protect an author should a message he sends wind up in the hands of a child despite his "good faith" intentions. And the concept of "indecency" was too broad, including possibly discussions of condoms, AIDS, breast cancer, and even homosexuality itself. But it isn't over. The government can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
OLYMPICS: Some Georgia legislators actually tried to force hotels to post warnings to athletes about the Tara state's sex laws.
GLIL is currently applying for status as a 501C3 organization. It is already incorporated in the District of Columbia.
News Release: GLIL Condemns DOMA
Leader Condemns House Vote on Marriage Act
"Indecent, Unconstitutional Assault Upon Human Dignity," Says Huff
(WASHINGTON, July 12, 1996) --- Calling the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the U.S. House of Representatives an "indecent assault on the dignity of citizens," Odell Huff, president of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), urged the Senate to block the bill's final approval. "This shows how excessive government intervention erodes the Constitution and strips citizens of their dignity."
"The divorces and infidelities of members of Congress are far more concrete threats to family values than the possibility that gay men and lesbians might form stable, happy families themselves," said Huff. "Isn't it ironic that the chief sponsor of this bill, Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, has been twice divorced and thrice-married? Perhaps he should attend to the log in his own eye before gouging out the specks in the eyes of others."
Huff explained: "When Congressmen and Senators are the parents of children growing up in broken homes, it is the height of hubris for them to interfere in the family lives of millions of hardworking Americans who want nothing more than to be left alone. Why does Congress feel the need to go out of its way to strip American citizens of their rights to privacy?"
"This legislation is clearly unconstitutional," said Huff. "Marriage and family law are the province of the states, not the federal government."
Huff pointed out that "it is a settled matter of constitutional law that Congress may not legislate on such family matters. As long ago as 1890, the Supreme Court ruled in In re Burrus that 'the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.'"
Huff noted that this view was upheld even more recently: "Ninety years later, the Court echoed this view in U.S. Association of Journeyman Pension Plan v. Myers: 'The delicate relationships of husband-wife, parent-child, and family-property relationships are traditionally matters of exclusive state concern. No provision of Article I of the Constitution confers power on Congress to legislate in these sensitive state fields.'"
The implications of the new law are vast, said Huff. "The import of the proposed marriage act is clear: Imagine if Congress announced that henceforth it would recognize only divorces granted according to rules and regulations set forth in Washington -- surely this would be viewed as an unjustifiable usurpation of state power."
Noting that leaders from both government parties have given lip-service to the idea of state and local sovereignty on legislative matters, Huff added that "President Clinton and congressional Republicans seem to support the power of states to write their own laws and want to preserve, protect, and defend' the Tenth Amendment only on uncontroversial issues where a true respect for individual liberty does not matter."
Ed note: See "Credit is Due," analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and "effect" subclause, by William Eskridge, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, The New Republic, June 17, 1996, p. 11.
The understated question is, should "legally married" people enjoy privileges from the government at the expense of those who don't or can't get legally married?
From the "debate" on the House floor, Rep. Barr condemned gay-marriage as the outcome of "narcissism" and "self-centered morality." What a translation of George Gilder's buzzwords! If "conduct" (sodomy) could define the class of homosexuals, so could "defective" character. Although DOMA, pragmatically speaking, may affect almost no people right now, there is no question that some conservatives want to use this "debate" to bait the emotions of the voters, to insinuate gays should be expelled from the mainstream and go back to their ghettos. The House "debate" was a sickening pandering to ignorance in the electorate/
Of course, none of this denies the social benefits of marriage, which include, besides providing for our children, the taming of men, and the provision of a "private" safety net for individuals. There is a lot of this in the excellent reader, edited by Bruce Bawer, "BEYOND QUEER: CHALLENGING GAY LEFT ORTHODOXY, with interesting contributions by many authors, including Jonathan Rauch and Paul Varnell. GLIL gets mentioned on p. 58.
Gene Cisewski lost his bid for election to the Libertarian National Chair, to incumbent Steve Dasbach. Gene continues to serve as the Chair of the Libertarian Party of DC and National Coordinator of the Libertarian Party Council of State Chairs.
Richard Sincere is serving as Chairman of the Social Studies Advisory Committee of the Arlington Public Schools. It's a two year term. Next year's focus will be on choosing textbooks for the schools (K-12) that will be used for the next seven years. Richard will leave his position as Chairman of the Virginia Libertarian Party in August.
Rick also made a television appearance on NewsTalk Television on May 22 and, in Cleveland, on "Gay 90's with Buck Harris."
Odell Huff was a guest on Legal Notebook on National Empowerment Television, pitted against two hosts and another guest all of whom were anti-gay.
Bill Boushka is finishing a book on the military gay ban and on the broader question of a "market liberal" approach to gay issues, and is now working with a literary agent. See the book abstract at http://www.ibb.com/liberty.htm. Bill was one of several speakers at a service honoring Leonard Matlovich on June 21. Bill printed his own overview on Romer, Hardwich, and the ban in a letter on the July 13 Washington Blade.
THE WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ
Advocates for Self-Government, in Atlanta, publishes a "self-government compass," a diamond grid (also called the Nolan Chart) which plots personal opinions (answered to "World's Smallest Political Quiz") on personal self-government against economic self-government. The chart shows a continuum of political persuasions as corners of a square: Authoritarian (bottom), Liberal (left), Libertarian (top), and Conservative (right), with "Centrist" in the middle. Many people who take this quiz have not previously recognized the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian," or that conservatism on economic issues (that is, economic self-governance) can fit well with "liberalism" on personal issues. "Liberal" proponents of personal freedom are forced to recognize principled connections to economic self-governance. Conservatives are forced to realize the inconsistencies in their own notions of limiting government. Over 100 people took this quiz at Pride Day in D.C., and our "constituency" definitely veered towards the Top and Left.
Contact: Advocates for Self-Government: call 1-800-932-1776 or write 1202 N Tennessee St., Suite 202, Cartersville Ga. 30120; try the web site at http://www.self-gov.org to take the quiz on-line. For $8, you can order copies of the quiz and a copy of the book Restoring the American Dream, by Robert Ringer.
Communications Act Deserved to Be Struck Down
Richard E. Sincere, Jr.
In 1975, the distinguished American historian C. Vann Woodward noted that "the history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable."
New life was breathed into Woodward's words on June 12, when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional the so-called Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was passed by Congress earlier this year as part of sweeping telecommunications reform. Paradoxically, the rest of the new law expanded freedom in that realm -- by permitting more competition in telephone and cable TV services, for instance -- while the decency provisions shrank freedom considerably.
At issue was the rapidly growing new mode of communications known as the Internet, and the fact that some of the material carried on this global network is considered obscene or indecent. The appeals court panel ruled that the Internet is the "most participatory from of mass communication yet developed [and] deserves the highest protection against government intrusion." The judges also ruled that the CDA's prohibition of "indecent" material -- punishable by a $250,000 fine and two years in prison -- was unconstitutionally broad and vague.
Virginians should be especially pleased with the court's decision on the CDA, because our state's job growth is due in large part to the expansion of computer technology, in particular the Internet. Mini-"Silicon Valleys" have sprung up in Northern Virginia and near Blacksburg; several multinational computer firms have announced plans to build facilities in suburban Richmond. Anything that would impede that growth -- including the CDA -- must be condemned.
The Libertarian Party -- along with dozens of other organized groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Council for the Arts, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and People for the American Way, as well as thousands of individuals across the country -- was an early opponent of the CDA. Libertarians agree with former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in 1952 that "restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
The appeals court's decision will help keep meddling politicians away from a technology that most of them don't even understand. It has created a zone of privacy around electronic communications that the government cannot breach. Our children's livelihoods as adults will rely extensively on new telecommunications technology, as America's -- and Virginia's -- economies increasingly become information-based, continuing a rising trend. The 21st century will, thanks to the First Amendment, be the Age of the Internet.
While some might argue that new technologies call for new restrictions, this is simply not the case. Although the First Amendment is more than 200 years old, it has not lost its validity simply because we can communicate in faster and flashier fashions than the Founders could. Censorship today is no different from censorship in 1791. Free speech is free speech, whether it is distributed via an 18th-century printing press or a 20th-century modem.
Professional politicians -- including the chief sponsor of the CDA, Nebraska Senator James Exon -- have little understanding of modern technology because they themselves do not deal with it on a daily basis, as the rest of us do. (Remember George Bush's surprise when he first encountered a bar-code-reading computer at a supermarket?) They do not realize that the free market is already responding with innovation and flexibility to the problems that they seek to remedy through rigid laws and expanding bureaucracies.
Large commercial Internet services such as the Fairfax County-based America Online already offer parents a "lock-out" tool to keep objectionable material away from children. Numerous commercial software products are now available to block objectionable material from the Internet's World Wide Web.
Some of these products are marketed through religious bookstores and through Christian mail-order houses. Using the bludgeon of government to solve this "problem" is not necessary, since far more focused, discrete, and effective tools are already available at your local computer store.
Primary responsibility for the moral upbringing of children belongs to their parents. No one should rely on government for this duty, because it is not the government's job. If parents are afraid their children will find something objectionable on the Internet, they should more fully supervise their children's use of computer technology -- in the same way that they supervise their TV viewing habits, the books they read, and the playmates they meet at school.
Individuals, exercising responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their family members, are far better equipped to make decisions about what to read, watch, write, or create than are outsiders working for some anonymous government agency. Citizens deserve to be trusted to lead their own lives without the interference of Beltway busybodies.
This article appeared in The Metro Herald, an African-American weekly newspaper based in Alexandria, Virginia, in its edition of Friday, June 21, 1996:
EDITORIAL: IT'S TIME FOR AN EXPLICIT RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY AMENDMENT
Talk is cheap. Proposals to amend the United States Constitution are, like mainframe programmers and Texas condos, "a dime a dozen." Wordsmiths have floated the Equal Rights Amendment (including a new one that includes gays), a "Protect the Flag" Amendment, multiple Right-to-Life amendments, and with the best of intentions, a Balanced Budget Amendment. Some libertarian forces may propose to end the Income Tax and Federal Reserve with amendments. As the virtual battle over gay marriage continues, a one-sentence Defense of ("straight") Marriage amendment has already been offered to evade the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause.
Ten years ago, with the vindictive Hardwick decision (1986) on the Georgia sodomy laws, the Supreme Court blurted out that the state may indeed perform purely non-consequentialist "moral" valuations of behavior, even among consenting adults in private. In striking down Colorado's Amendment 2, the Supreme Court conceded that government may not intentionally handicap a group for no particular reason but historical prejudice, and the majority hinted that the Court would scrutinize questionable attempts to define a "class" through "conduct." But it is clear that current constitutional case law does not sufficiently protect the right of adults to be free from state interference with private, consensual intimate association, even in their own homes. Often, the law seems to be motivated by a superficial idea of "family values," and holds that freedom from governmental supervision should apply only to "legitimate" families with children. Dornan has added a rider to the 1997 Defense bill to require the military to resume "asking" and to forcibly "out" otherwise "covert" gay soldiers. The military today has forced civilian lovers of gay soldiers to testify to acts of "sodomy." Georgia has, in several notorious cases, actually prosecuted heterosexuals for consensual "sodomy." Courts actually use sodomy laws (as in Bottoms) as indirect justification to take children away from biological parents. Laws in Virginia, still in the books if in legal limbo, prohibit the sale of alcohol to "known homosexuals," and prohibit cohabitation by unmarried adults (even without public recognition). A zealous prosecutor could still conduct a military-style witch-hunt (by providing selective immunities) to hunt down violators of the Crimes Against Nature law. In Texas, police used to harass gay bars regularly with false "lewdness" arrests and threats of conspiracy charges.
In many areas beyond criminal codes, the Constitution still gives insufficient protection for Jefferson's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - that is, the expression of individual inner identity. Zoning laws prohibit unmarried couples from buying or renting together. Gay churches are prohibited from buying property in certain neighborhoods. Through controlling the "marriage license," the state gets indirect authority to leverage private behavior. Parents unable to afford private schools must accept whatever the politicians barter as the appropriate curricula for their children. People simply fitting profiles of "drug couriers" or approaching "prostitutes" have personal property seized without criminal trial under "civil forfeiture," without reasonable likelihood of recovery. "Johns" can legally be shamed in the press after arrest. However one feels about abortion, it is easy to envision objectionable laws prohibiting women from using insemination and forcing them to submit to sex to have children. Government still has the legal right to require forced servitude, including drafting into the military, and to use that power to identify and single out non-conformists and "undesirables" for discrimination in later life, or to force people (particularly men) to conform to their biological gender roles.
It's time for us to get into the ring and propose an Amendment of our own, an addition to the Bill of Rights. We need a Right to Privacy and Intimate Association amendment. To sell this idea to the general public, we should offer variations, in a congruent spirit, which address mainstream privacy concerns. For example, we could reinforce the right of parents to control the content of their kids' educations. We could offer to protect the right to give birth, even by insemination, and protect the right to "choose" abortion during the first trimester only. We could force government to decriminalize private possession and use of most drugs (although maybe not sale, transport, and trafficking). We would outlaw conscription, even into a civilian "national service" run by the state.
Such an amendment would only prevent a government (but even including the military) from criminalizing behavior; it would not, by itself, prohibit private interests (employers, property owners, insurers) from investigating and "discriminating" because of perceived inclinations or "propensities" for behavior. It would not create a "suspect classes" or provide a basis for entitlements. It would, however, forbid government to pass laws for which it has no reasonable expectation of gaining convictions, based on our notions of "due process." It would also stop the government itself from irrational exclusion and discrimination (even in the military), and from feeding animosity and discrimination in the private sector.
Increasingly, people really want to be allowed to be responsible for themselves. So, this amendment would be no call for cultural license. But, in proposing that the government largely butt out of codifying abstract "moral notions" and out of related social engineering, it would intensify the moral and, indeed, psychological debate, particularly over personal surplus and autonomy and its connection to process of human commitments and to protecting our children.
Of course, this is no trivial educational undertaking. An ad-hoc, non-partisan group should be formed to consider contents and language of such an amendment. Constitutional scholars would need to be recruited. Gradually, this town-hall dialogue, on how psychological, moral, legal, and political concepts link, would migrate from Congress, the statehouses and courts to private spheres. The essential justification for the amendment will be that personal responsibility, rather than government approbation, must ultimately vindicate or justify personal lifestyle and intimate "choices"; every person must be responsible for the self. Hopefully, the public would start to see that "self-actualization" is much different from "gratification," as fulfillment requires knowing how to meet the real needs of other people, especially when other people are not easily "lovable." Indeed, today's intrusive government, despite its best intentions, probably encourages a utilitarian, superficially "selfish" approach to human relationships. In time, the public will realize that such an Amendment and related restriction of statutory discretion is indeed in the best interests of all Americans.
Some libertarians believe that the only way to protect the "pursuit of happiness" from government is to abruptly and radically deconstruct almost the entire Federal government, outside of common defense and foreign policy areas. They would call for elimination of welfare, of all Federal taxes, quick privatization of social security, total legalization of drugs, and even the end of government fiat money. That is, it's all or nothing. By concentrating first on government interference with "personal fulfillment," we can have a non-partisan debate which will coax people into understanding how politicians keep them divided into camps (families vs. singles, different races, grandchildren vs. grandparents) over the mirage of finite wealth and "sacrifice"; we can get people weaned from dependence on the state for their personal notions of stability and self-concept. Since technology has indeed given back to people and their families a potential autonomy that seemed lost in all the "tribal" conflicts of the past, people may then learn that "government doesn't work," that government cannot protect people from themselves, and that people must indeed haul in government's safety nets.
I am interested in starting this effort myself. Somebody has to. Share your thoughts with me on this at JBOUSHKA@aol.com (http://home.aol.com/JBOUSHKA)
This newsletter is a publication of
GAYS AND LESBIANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
GLIL PO Box 65473
Washington, DC 20035-5743
If you are interested in joining, please go to our membership form.
Please send news items, comments and letters (prefer 300 words or less) to JBOUSHKA@aol.com
Please send change of address and eMail address to one of the following:
JBOUSHKA@aol.com, SonoGalt@aol.com
http://www.clark.net/pub/ghoti/glil/